Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I have been working on forest policy for my entire tenure in Congress. I have some of the most productive and fabulous forest lands in the entire Federal system, both Forest Service and BLM lands, under a unique O&C management.
But here we are again headed into a very, very potentially bad fire season, June record heat, no precipitation. We had very little snowpack last winter, and the heavy fuels are already as dry as they get.
We have seen this before. The fires will break out. BLM and Forest Service can't stop fighting the fires. So they will borrow from other accounts, including fuel reduction to protect forest values and communities, forest health, and a myriad of other programs.
This happens year after year after year. It is time to end that, and this bill takes that first step in ending that practice of fire borrowing.
And that is of tremendous benefit to the resource agencies, the resources themselves, and our preparedness and capability of fighting fires. That alone gives this bill tremendous merit.
It deals with some other longstanding issues in Oregon. We adopted something called temporary eastside screens back in 1993, I believe, saying you couldn't cut any tree over 21 inches in diameter.
It makes no biological sense, and it makes no sense to the premier forest scientists in the world, Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson.
You have nonnative fir trees that are growing there, because of repression of fire for the last 100 years, that are 100 years old. They are over 21 inches.
But they are growing in stands of ponderosas that are 200 years old, and they are going to kill the ponderosa stands, the native trees.
But the Forest Service can't go in and deal with that issue. With this legislation they finally can.
On our unique O&C lands, there is a provision of the Northwest Forest Plan called Survey and Manage, literally crawling around on the forest floor, looking for slugs, snails, calling for owls, and doing all these things 3 years in a row.
This, again, is not necessary, according to the premier scientists, and is incredibly expensive and time-consuming on the part of the Bureau of Land Management.
In fact, the Bureau of Land Management's new plans--each plan, no matter what the output level, would do away with that practice. So this bill does away with that practice, saving the BLM resources and moving ahead with better management.
There are a number of other issues that relate to these O&C lands. I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Chairman McClintock for working with myself, Mr. Schrader, and Mr. Walden in order to address these issues, extending the comment period, developing new management options.
BLM is refusing, despite the Oregon Delegation's bipartisan request to extend the comment period on these critical management plans. So that itself is also great merit.
There are provisions in the bill that I don't like and don't support.
We will be given an opportunity with the Polis amendment to deal with the bonding issue and the cost recovery issue, which I don't think belongs in this bill.
I have concerns about the magnitude of the CEs for fire recovery and salvage. But, on balance, the other parts of this bill are important to the point where the bill should receive support from people that care about the future of our forests.
Mr. Chair, I have been working on forestry issues for a long time--nearly 30 years. I represent a district with some of the most productive public timberlands in the entire world. I also represent a district that cares deeply--passionately--about the environment and our incredible national forests.
For 30 years I have been trying to find a middle ground on national forest policy--a balanced approach. I believe that having a healthy timber industry, good paying jobs in rural communities, and permanent protection for our nation's most iconic resources--like old growth trees and pristine rivers--are not and should not be mutually exclusive.
Do I think the bill before the House today is a perfect bill? Absolutely not. But when you are working on a contentious, complex, and often emotional issue like national forest policy--there is no such thing as a ``perfect bill.''
The truth is our national forests are burning up at an alarming rate. They are dying from disease and bugs. Our land management agencies don't have the financial resources or tools to deal with existing threats let alone emerging threats, like climate change. The Federal Government spends billions of dollars every year to fight fires on public lands, rather than investing those dollars in forest health and resiliency to reduce wildfire risks.
Our rural and forested communities continue to suffer from double digit unemployment. Even the mills that have retrofitted to process small diameter logs are struggling to make it. And rural counties dependent on timber receipts are failing to keep violent criminals in jail, sheriff deputies on our roads, and kids and teachers in the classroom.
So, again, no. I don't think this is a perfect bill. But, Congress needs to do something to change the status quo for our forests and rural communities. We need to have this conversation and work together to find middle ground.
WILDFIRE FUNDING
And there are some good provisions in this bill. One of the most important provisions attempts to end ``fire borrowing''--a top priority of mine when I was Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee and a remaining priority of mine as Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that has jurisdiction over FEMA.
Right now, when federal land managers exhaust congressionally appropriated dollars to fight fires, the agencies have to borrow money from other accounts. Often times those accounts fund the very activities--like thinning overstocked plantations, reducing hazardous fuels, or completing work in the Wildland Urban Interface--that can actually help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires! That's a terrible way to do business.
Catastrophic wildfires should be treated like other natural disasters and we should stop robbing Peter to pay Paul. The wildfire funding language in this bill--while not perfect--moves us in the right direction.
EASTSIDE SCREENS
This bill also includes provisions that will improve forest management in the Pacific Northwest. The bill would remove the unscientific and arbitrary ``Eastside Screens'' that prohibit the Forest Service from cutting any tree in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington that is larger than 21 inches in diameter.
Supporters of the Eastside Screens forget that the 21 inch rule was intended to provide interim protection for larger, older trees until scientifically based standards for old growth were established. Well, guess what? After more than two decades those standards have still not been established, handcuffing the Forest Service from carrying out common sense forest projects.
Today, even if there is a non-native, 22-inch diameter Douglas fir tree that is outcompeting and putting at risk a native, 200 year-old stand of ponderosa pine, you can't cut that fir. That would violate the Eastside Screens.
That doesn't make any sense. Yes, we need protection for old growth forests and I was the first to pass permanent, legislative protection for old growth in Western Oregon out of the House last year. But, those protections should be scientific and implementable.
O&C LANDS
The same goes for standards established more than 20 years ago, known as Survey and Manage, that literally has land management personnel on their hands and knees on the forest floor looking for liverworts, fungi, slugs, snails, mosses, and 300 other types of flora and fauna before any forest activity can take place. I am all for robust analysis and considering the impacts of human activity on rare and special species. But we also need to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and aware of the consequences of over-analysis, lengthy delays, and not taking action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agrees with me. That's why all of the Resource Management Plan alternatives for Western Oregon would eliminate Survey and Manage.
Unfortunately, the BLM still has some work to do on the Resource Management Plans for the statutorily unique O&C Lands. Despite requests from most of the Oregon Congressional Delegation to extend the public comment period to analyze thousands of pages of documentation for the alternatives, the BLM decided not to award an extension.
I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Chairman McClintock for working with me, Rep. Walden, and Rep. Schrader to include language that would direct the BLM to consider additional alternatives for the O&C Lands- ranging from a sustained yield alternative to a carbon storage alternative--and to extend the public comment period by 180 days. These Resource Management Plans will govern management on the O&C Lands for years to come--perhaps decades--and we must get them right. Taking time to analyze new alternatives and giving the public more time to review and comment is absolutely crucial.
I also want to thank the respective Chairmen for incorporating the Public Domain lands within the O&C land base. These lands in Western Oregon are already managed in the same manner. Reclassifying the Public Domain lands as O&C Lands will improve management efficiency, provide clarity to the BLM, and create additional revenues for the O&C Counties.
But, as I mentioned, this bill isn't perfect. In fact, it includes a number of troubling provisions that should be completely eliminated or substantially modified before being signed into law.
PROVISIONS OF CONCERN
For example, the bill would allow categorical exclusions (CEs) for salvage logging projects up to 5,000 acres in size. That's 20 times larger than the current 250-acre size limitation for salvage logging CEs adopted by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, the Committee adopted an amendment during markup that eliminated key restrictions on the construction of temporary roads within the salvage project area. These provisions are a non-starter.
The bill allows CEs for projects intended to create early successional habitat. I worked with the pre-eminent scientists in the world on pilot projects in Oregon with similar management goals. But for these projects to work and for there to be social buy-in, there need to be strong sideboards for such projects, like green tree retention requirements and old growth protection.
Language has been added that could exempt the application of herbicides from a full environmental impact statement when used to ``improve, remove, or reduce the risk of wildfire.'' I understand the Forest Service uses herbicides in limited circumstances to address noxious weeds and other threats through manual application. But such application should remain extremely limited, publicly transparent, and restricted to manual application instead of aerial application. There should be no ambiguity in this language and its intent, nor should it expand herbicide application on public lands.
This bill would make it harder for a person with a legitimate grievance against a federal land management agency to sue by requiring that person to post a bond covering the anticipated costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees of the government to defend the lawsuit. I understand you want to limit frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits from parties that don't meaningfully engage in the public process. But this isn't the way to do it. I will be voting for an amendment later today to strike the entire section.
Mr. Chair, this bill has some important, balanced provisions. It also has some controversial, unnecessary provisions. We know that this bill, in its current form, will not be signed by the president. But I want to keep this conversation moving forward and I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, House and Senate, to do something meaningful for our rural communities and national forests. I will support this bill today with the understanding that this legislation still needs work, significant improvement, and further compromise.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source